Its not just the quality & creativity of the audio that is important, but the interface to preview/screen/save them.

Before I go digging around into these, does anyone have any personal favs that they think I should add to my list?

Thanks!!

**EDIT** Oh yeah, the song we're looking for would be an inspirational/uplifting song...maybe even slightly patriotic. Slow drawn out intro that builds into a positive vibe celebrating hard workers/etc.

I'm like a saller, so for me:
AudioJungle is my fav
by the way, Pond5 is also good one, where someone buy my tracks... and IstockPhoto like a little bit of sales
with LuckStock and RevoStock I have no sales

If I buyer, then I choose AudioJungle, tons of music and that's why less price

I've composed and produced tv and movie scores for 30 years and have just discovered this great site ..... so registered and opened up the forum list.

I can barely believe my eyes ... top of the list ... WHAT A DEPRESSING QUESTION.

Further down the list I see a host of fabulous threads ..... one of which raises the subject "Music for Film contract" ...... there are many on there who are cross about the state of things in our industry re: Royalty Free scenarios.

I am suddenly so depressed ..... am I so old and totally out of touch ...... is this a question everyone's comfortable with?

Quote:

an inspirational/uplifting song...maybe even slightly patriotic. Slow drawn out intro that builds into a positive vibe celebrating hard workers/etc.

I know the world now thinks music should be unquestionably free ..... NOT "INSPIRATIONAL" from where I'm coming from.

Well we plan on paying whatever the cost is for this "royalty free music". But we don't need to pay him every time its viewed online etc lol. To be honest, I dont know too much about licensing/contract/royalty law. But no....we by no means expect music to be FREE.

To get an original composer to develop something for this video project is probably out of scope. I COULD HAVE DONE IT myself...but I didn't really feel like it lol, not for the emotion that this project was trying to create.

Maybe u can spit out some generic compositions and post them on the royalty-free sites (listed above) and make some side money? I was curious as to how much these guys can make in an average year. Some of them have some great production skills and artistry. Yes, the music is rather "generic sounding" but its rather supposed to be.

Sorry u feel bummed....maybe its not that bad?

And the "inspirational" comment was just the FEEL of the song we were looking for...think "Born to Run" by Bruce Springsteen or something lol.

I've composed and produced tv and movie scores for 30 years and have just discovered this great site ..... so registered and opened up the forum list.

I can barely believe my eyes ... top of the list ... WHAT A DEPRESSING QUESTION.

Further down the list I see a host of fabulous threads ..... one of which raises the subject "Music for Film contract" ...... there are many on there who are cross about the state of things in our industry re: Royalty Free scenarios.

I am suddenly so depressed ..... am I so old and totally out of touch ...... is this a question everyone's comfortable with?

I know the world now thinks music should be unquestionably free ..... NOT "INSPIRATIONAL" from where I'm coming from.

I think you misunderstand.

The term "royalty free" does not mean FREE FREE. Royalty free pays a license fee UP FRONT, and nothing after that point. If synchronized to visual media, a cue sheet must be filed just like any other Film/TV show does, and back end performance royalties pay as per normal.

The term "Royalty Free" means you don't have to keep coming back to the library for different usages or markets. Yes, it's not optimal for the composer, but it does NOT mean people are stealing your music.

However the idea of actually sitting these 3 words together in the same sentence really troubles me:
"royalty free music"

Does this phrase simply refer to the buying out of Mechanical Rights? (ie Performing Rights are still payable?) I think I understand where you're coming from and really understand that this is a very tough specific market we're talking about.

When I score movies for american production companies, the contracts are on average 85 pages long and have clauses that infer that if I die whilst scoring their movie, they will sue my family for my non completion. (dictating that one carries an insurance policy incase such an event incurs them extra costs!)

It's taken me years to understand the complexities of sync rights / licensing / so called grand rights etc ..... it really is a minefield that chiefly expensive lawyers profit greatly from.

But even in serious sync contracts that threaten my family's financial well being, I haven't been aware of any clause that says I am to provide "royalty free music". (.... yet!)

I do wish there was a better phrase to describe what's actually meant here .... that's all. Sorry if I've not quite got this right yet but does the following explain what's going on here?

However the idea of actually sitting these 3 words together in the same sentence really troubles me:
"royalty free music"

Does this phrase simply refer to the buying out of Mechanical Rights? (ie Performing Rights are still payable?) I think I understand where you're coming from and really understand that this is a very tough specific market we're talking about.

When I score movies for american production companies, the contracts are on average 85 pages long and have clauses that infer that if I die whilst scoring their movie, they will sue my family for my non completion. (dictating that one carries an insurance policy incase such an event incurs them extra costs!)

It's taken me years to understand the complexities of sync rights / licensing / so called grand rights etc ..... it really is a minefield that chiefly expensive lawyers profit greatly from.

But even in serious sync contracts that threaten my family's financial well being, I haven't been aware of any clause that says I am to provide "royalty free music". (.... yet!)

I do wish there was a better phrase to describe what's actually meant here .... that's all. Sorry if I've not quite got this right yet but does the following explain what's going on here?

"allowing mechanical rights usage for a one off fee"?

SEASONS GREETINGS TO YOU ALL .... WHAT A GREAT FORUM!

Best wishes
Hugus x

Hugus - you need not be afraid or worried about that phrase. You must understand where it comes from. It is a Music Library term. Traditionally, music libraries would pay you a flat fee up front to produce a product (music) for them. Then, they would own the publishing and the master rights. In turn, they would traditionally license your music to as many places as they could. Each license would generate revenue for THEM - not the composer. Any further income from the composer would come thru their PRO via writers royalties.

Again, traditionally, the library would send all music applicable to the client for a yearly low fee, and when the client found a piece they wanted to use, they would call the library for a SPECIFIC "license" and pay an additional fee.

This license traditionally used the term "needle drop" which referred to a specific, one time, limited and well defined license. There was a contractual limit to what they could use the music for and how long they could use it for. IF they had a new use, they would have to call up and get a new "needle drop" license. (Needle referring to when libraries distributed on vinyl, but the phrase stuck (and still sticks) although some companies started referring to "Laser Drops" in the CD era.)

So...these were the traditional big, well invested companies. Smaller companies started to form and wanted in on a piece of the pie. One of their strategies was "Royalty Free Music" or "Buyout Music". You could BUY music from them (license really) and pay a ONE TIME ONLY license fee and then use that music as many times in as many fashions for as many of your clients as you wanted.

Hence the term "ROYALTY FREE MUSIC". ie: No more royalties due after initial purchase.

The term DOES NOT mean stolen music or music that is not paid for. It DOES NOT mean there are no performance royalties. It simply means, no more money paid out from the purchaser after the initial purchase.

In BOTH Royalty Free music and Needle Drop Music Library's, producers and users of the music are required to fill out cue sheets so composer and publisher (now the music library) get paid their performance royalties.

The music business in in a constant state of change. We've got to change with it to continue to make a living. Is "Royalty Free" Good, Bad, Indifferent? Depends on your perspective. I make a lot of my income from both ROYALTY FREE and NEEDLE DROP libraries.

Many thanks Dr Bill ..... what a really helpful concise and informative note. I've only done a couple of old fashioned library projects in my career (for a library called KPM in the UK) ..... so not familiar as you are of the terms you refer to in NEEDLE DROP libraries (or indeed even that name). Many apologies for my being so naive. I bet this clarifies exactly how this works for others too!

What I follow with moves away from the main body of your thread Dr B but does relate, so I'll continue in the knowledge that this is a subject that opens into a can of worms ..... there will certainly be many threads that ensue in this forum about the "constant state of change" you mention.

I agree entirely with you that the music business is in this constant state of change and this last 10 or so years has seen a more rapid flux than almost the whole of the last century.

In Europe we've always been less prepared to bite the bullet in terms of losing ownership and ultimately copyright royalties than you guys stateside, but I can see a time soon when recorded music all over the world (ie that part of the industry that can't earn money from live performance) will have very little income ..... just tiny production budgets and no royalties whatsoever.

In the states there are already music organisations that want composers to sign to them and in doing so, they want them to hand over ALL rights ..... so no performing or mechanical royalty whatsoever. In the scramble for a toe in the door by young writers, it's only a question of time before many of them may feel inclined to sign up ........ those of us who earn a living in the last vestiges of the "traditional" business will be horrified but I guess we can't stop them. They are the future.

Eventually, just as we've all had to hand over more and more of our rights and royalties, there will be nothing left for the composer apart from a very small production budget.

When I scored my first Hollywood action movie in the mid 80's, the production companies in LA all assumed that they would retain publishing rights ... I was horrified ... but it was something that within 10 years took a grip in the UK.

Europe is always behind but I'm sure what you've outlined will happen everywhere sooner or later.

Whereas by contrast, last year I scored a movie that was produced in Germany(in the English Language but with Hollywood stars and produced majorly for the USA) In places like Germany and France it is still actually against their laws to take 100 % royalties away from composers under ANY circumstances. The German law states that the minimum a composer can be left with in any kind of work (music library / film production ..... whatever) is 50% Mechanical and 50% Performing rights. So for example 50% mechanical music royalties have to even be paid on DVD sales ...... my gosh they have it SO good!

I know in my heart of hearts that the money that composers earned in LA 10 years ago has dropped incredibly ..... as too is income everywhere (the rest of the world simply takes a little time to catch on)

Yes it's really important that we find new ways to earn a living.

We can't turn back the tide ...... do you think it will be possible to actually earn a living out of recording any sort of music in a few years?

I believe library music will ultimately become a kind of huge free Apple Loops type library app that is given away for editors use to with Final Cut Pro and its successors.

No problem. Happy to describe what the situation is, although it's quite a bit more complex than my simple explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

In Europe we've always been less prepared to bite the bullet in terms of losing ownership and ultimately copyright royalties than you guys stateside,.

Don't get me wrong, composers here are VEHEMENTLY pro-copyright. It is the last vestige of being able to earn a living. My income is now 80%+ royalty based, and I am pro-copyright to the point of creating rifts between myself and friends when the subject and implications of "sharing" arises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

In the states there are already music organisations that want composers to sign to them and in doing so, they want them to hand over ALL rights ..... so no performing or mechanical royalty whatsoever. .

I'm aware of the creative commons movement, but IMO it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Do you have anything more specific or links?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

Eventually, just as we've all had to hand over more and more of our rights and royalties, there will be nothing left for the composer apart from a very small production budget..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

I know in my heart of hearts that the money that composers earned in LA 10 years ago has dropped incredibly ..... .

I have a composer friend that I work with on occasion. He came over to Hollywood from France in the early 80's and went on to score many films and be quite successful. His bread and butter was "Made for TV" Films and Mini-series. In the early 80's, his take was around $80,000 and the studio paid for all expenses - studio's, musicians, engineers, etc. By 1990, it became $80,000 All in. Composer pays for everything. By 2008 it was $25-30,000, composer pays for everything, and there is NO WORK to be had even at that price. So yes, the cost of living in LA has gone thru the ROOF, and earnings are down in the basement. Which is why I've taken a different pathway as of late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

Yes it's really important that we find new ways to earn a living..

Yes, agree 110%. Music libraries may be part of that pathway....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugus Maximus

I believe library music will ultimately become a kind of huge free Apple Loops type library app that is given away for editors use to with Final Cut Pro and its successors.

I don't think so. On a grass-roots superficial level, we may almost be there already, but the high end libraries still make very good money and are not going anywhere.

In places like Germany and France it is still actually against their laws to take 100 % royalties away from composers under ANY circumstances. The German law states that the minimum a composer can be left with in any kind of work (music library / film production ..... whatever) is 50% Mechanical and 50% Performing rights. So for example 50% mechanical music royalties have to even be paid on DVD sales ...... my gosh they have it SO good!

You cannot take away the writers share in the UK or anywhere else either without being under a work for hire agreement - a system which now has dubious legality. As a freelance composer even if 100% of the publishing is taken away the writers share is still with you. If you are being treated any different in the UK then you've been ripped off under an illegal contract.

Cant speak too much for Germany (although deal with GEMA a lot) but France; whilst seemingly protecting its composers causes them a heck of a lot of issues when it comes to getting work in anything but French state sponsored programming and film work. You cannot do buy out at all. This is a huge issue for users of music who wish to pay a single fee and not work within usage royalty for sound to picture. I suspect the same is true for Germany but fortunately I've not had to deal with it. It has been increasingly hard to get any work for composers working in France and as such many opportunities have dried up for them outside of their own nation.

In synch work we now have to decline French artists as there is no way to get a buy out fee included in the negotiation EVEN THOUGH most buyouts are at least as large as an source royalty would be. This does;'t affect PRS (or equivalent) from broadcast - but source fees on DVD (no royalties here ), online download promo (which carries no collection as yet but will soon) or video games. It is no good for one state to levy a set of rules if the rest of the BIEM areas don't follow suite.

And there is the main problem in music royalty. When it was just about de-facto for all musicians and composers to be union based it was not an issue to mandate royalty collation for exploitation of work. However in the western world the union system has all but collapsed as people consider such socialist leanings a dirty word. Except in music!!! So we have half a music area with a union mandate (orchestral in particular) and half mandated collection system (PRS/MCPS in UK) and the rest is all bound up in single contract or dodgy work for hire agreements.

Now - it used to be difficult to pull together score for product; there was a barrier to entry. This barrier is gone. cheap samples abound and home studios are en masse. Either we revolutionise the copyright system and pay proper rates to people under work for hire (which would mean employing the musicians for a length of time commensurate with a work contract including all health benefits and NI/pension contributions) or we enforce a full union system where you may not trade as a working composer/musician without being a union affiliate under license.

We have it half way at the moment and that is one of the main causes of problems. Playing devils advocate -
why DOES a composer deserve royalties for the music on a TV programme?
The set designer doesn't get royalties.
Neither does the script writer (unless they own the format and carry big sway).
Costume designers don't get royalties.
Sound mixers don't unless they are superstars.

So what gives? Why is it different for musician/composers ESPECIALLY in a time when much production music is preset after cliched riff after preset? We need it to be one way or another and at the moment it is a messy muddy ground for all kind of lemons and pigs to run in and take advantage of

It is an ever increasing nightmare with both rigid unionism and a race to the bottom in fees!

I believe library music will ultimately become a kind of huge free Apple Loops type library app that is given away for editors use to with Final Cut Pro and its successors.

It's already there. The fees are only paid upon usage.

Have a look at the business models of Cutting Edge or even the Play library under EMI. There will be ways to make money in recording music but the ins and outs of it are changing. I expect to see more companies like Remote Control or Cutting Edge.

Playing devils advocate -
why DOES a composer deserve royalties for the music on a TV programme?
The set designer doesn't get royalties.
Neither does the script writer (unless they own the format and carry big sway).
Costume designers don't get royalties.
Sound mixers don't unless they are superstars.

When it comes to copyright and back end royalties, I like to shoot devil's advocates....

To answer the question - because once upon a time, that's the way someone set it up - or it's what things just coalesced into. Composers can't compose without the backend. Only just a HANDFUL of composers in the world make superstar amounts up front. And even the big ones (In the top 10 but I'll not name names) are taking HUGE cuts and doing indie films these days. Take away the back end and you completely sink the composer.

Script writers, costume designers, sound mixers, etc. all get GREAT up front $$$ and most are unionized and get great pensions, etc.. I do not understand the desire to take away copyright and royalties from those who work their @$$#$ off their entire lives, devoting well beyond the call of duty to their craft, only to be ripped off by the likes of Google, etc.. It's a crime.

Going slightly off on a tangent here, but someone referred to 'Royalty Free Music' as a piece of music you purchase a licence for once, then can use as many times as you wish. And AudioJungle was listed in that category:

That's a great relief .... I was worried that this might become the next status quo.

Quote:

I expect to see more companies like Remote Control or Cutting Edge.

Actually Narcoman .... you've just hit the nail bang on the head. I'm aware that these guys are where the market's going. THE KINGS SPEECH soundtrack is now advertised on the CUTTING EDGE website as ready for licensing along with "5000 tracks and growing" ..... this is where income is going to really flow in.

Talking creatively, I know a film editor who just worked with guys like this and are worried that the fact that the scores for every movie will end up available for licensing (like a huge one stop library) may start to effect things creatively.

Imagine the scenario ... SPOTTING MEETING :
Director tells the composer "I really love your idea of a banjo running through this scene with a nose flute!"
Music Consultant from Film Music Company X tells the Director "who do you think you are? What we need is something less characterful and more bland .... something that might get more general use later ..... oh and by the way ..... we're paying for this score, so from here on in we're going to be involved with any conversations about choice of music"

The names of the instruments have been changed to protect the innocent .... but this conversation occurred in a London cutting room this year.

Worse still ..... in a few years time, thousands of incredible 5.1 orchestral scores by A list composers will be sitting on the "Library" shelves of these one stop shop "we service all your music needs" companies (all with 5.1 stem mixes)
Why will anyone then want to commission new music when you will be able to buy every possible variety of music from incredible scores off the shelf, and with the aid of a music editor, simply cut and paste them around your new movie.

This I find frightening ...... a world where the only creativity in the film music world will be that of the new main film music man ..... THE FILM MUSIC DJ (on the payroll of "FILM MUSIC inc")

Sorry if this all seems so gloomy ...... please someone come in with something cheerful to say that represents a potential growth area in our business .... I want to hear some good news!
Seasons Greetings to everyone
Hugus

That's a great relief .... I was worried that this might become the next status quo.

Actually Narcoman .... you've just hit the nail bang on the head. I'm aware that these guys are where the market's going. THE KINGS SPEECH soundtrack is now advertised on the CUTTING EDGE website as ready for licensing along with "5000 tracks and growing" ..... this is where income is going to really flow in.

Talking creatively, I know a film editor who just worked with guys like this and are worried that the fact that the scores for every movie will end up available for licensing (like a huge one stop library) may start to effect things creatively.

Imagine the scenario ... SPOTTING MEETING :
Director tells the composer "I really love your idea of a banjo running through this scene with a nose flute!"
Music Consultant from Film Music Company X tells the Director "who do you think you are? What we need is something less characterful and more bland .... something that might get more general use later ..... oh and by the way ..... we're paying for this score, so from here on in we're going to be involved with any conversations about choice of music"

The names of the instruments have been changed to protect the innocent .... but this conversation occurred in a London cutting room this year.

Worse still ..... in a few years time, thousands of incredible 5.1 orchestral scores by A list composers will be sitting on the "Library" shelves of these one stop shop "we service all your music needs" companies (all with 5.1 stem mixes)
Why will anyone then want to commission new music when you will be able to buy every possible variety of music from incredible scores off the shelf, and with the aid of a music editor, simply cut and paste them around your new movie.

This I find frightening ...... a world where the only creativity in the film music world will be that of the new main film music man ..... THE FILM MUSIC DJ (on the payroll of "FILM MUSIC inc")

Sorry if this all seems so gloomy ...... please someone come in with something cheerful to say that represents a potential growth area in our business .... I want to hear some good news!
Seasons Greetings to everyone
Hugus

I wouldn't be frightened. I'd be changing your contracts to make sure you're cut in on a piece of the licensing pie. You may find that you're doing 25% of the films you used to per year, and making 150% of the money. Possibly.... Hard to know how this will all pan out, but one thing is for sure - you have to retain as much ownership of your music as you can and still be able to morph and change with the industry.

I'm "frightened" by the fact that even certain "A" composers aren't capable of hanging on to their royalties. I did a co-write with a famous Oscar winning composer last year and when I suggested he was lucky because he was in a position to retain at least some of his publishing, he said "you must be joking!" Apparently at the top of the pile, there's still one word that everyone must know the meaning of - "Acquisition!"

I didn't feel too sorry, as the commissioning fees at the level this guy works come with six zeroes ..... however I think most of the film music outfits (certainly in the UK) are very keen on the "acquisition" word, but sadly they don't pay big fees to many european composers.

I find that I'm able to retain less and less publishing wise, and although I'm only working in the $10 - 35 million indy movie scene,(UK based with occasional USA funded mini-series type projects) our budgets are also shrinking incredibly rapidly and I'm certainly not in a position to make many demands contract wise. In fact spies tell me that things are changing very quickly with the A list too.

I do agree that it's all about our retaining ownership of our music ..... just not sure (beyond basic 50% PRS type earnings) how much I personally can manage to retain.

Playing devils advocate -
why DOES a composer deserve royalties for the music on a TV programme?
The set designer doesn't get royalties.
Neither does the script writer (unless they own the format and carry big sway).
Costume designers don't get royalties.
Sound mixers don't unless they are superstars.

It's because we are artists, not artisans. Our talent is rare, and cannot be 'learned'. Sure you can go to school and 'learn' how to compose (I used to teach it, actually). But to have a long career, you need something that is intangible, a special quality that is akin to that of a painter, a sculptor, a poet, a choreographer, etc. You are not handed a script to read out loud, you have to make your own script, albeit in abstract, sonic terms. You are the musical director, and, in some cases (B-movies), the impact of your music can make or break a film. Seriously. We are not crew, we are key, like the director, producers. If you don't believe me, look it up, see how governments only recognize a few players in a tv/film team for tax credits, and the composer is one of them, not the costumer designer, sound mixer (no offense, friends), etc.
Finally, we also work longer on the project than most people on the team.

I'm "frightened" by the fact that even certain "A" composers aren't capable of hanging on to their royalties. I did a co-write with a famous Oscar winning composer last year and when I suggested he was lucky because he was in a position to retain at least some of his publishing, he said "you must be joking!" Apparently at the top of the pile, there's still one word that everyone must know the meaning of - "Acquisition!"

How did they manage to remove the writers share? A lot of contracts try this on - but it;s worth pointing out to the contracting party that if they try to acquire full composition rights they are effectively nulling and voiding their whole contract and leaving sole ownership with the composition team. Watch this space for a huge video game problem in the future as all deals have been buyouts so far !!

There is another scenario though - and not one I'm going to put in print on an open forum.

Movie soundtracks on licensing house websites - the way this works is the license company approaches the film company and tells them they will pay for the composer and soundtrack as long as they get to keep the ownership for subsequent exploitation. It works for the composer in one way because you get higher fees. It also helps bring in a better budget for recording as the license house is seeking for a boutique edge upon rivals.

As for previous soundtracks - well they've always been available for license; they just haven't been marketed towards editors as they are now.

It's been implied that there can be no money collected on DVD's for the composer, whereas for example a well known BBC UK comedy show that was released 4 or 5 years ago has earned in excess of £1 million MCPS for the music and composers here regularly earn in excess of £100,000 on successful shows that go to DVD. There is also money earned on cinema seats in the UK. (although not the USA)

Something that my publisher made me aware of this week is that there are writers earning large sums from YOUTUBE which is something I knew nothing of. He reckons it's worth claiming anything that gets over 50,000 hits? Anyone else aware of this?

There are many such sites where you can find cheap royatly music. But they are not unique. They doesnt suit your purpose.
Look at some exclusive collection. I found a site where you can download royalty free music . Click on the link i provided

The term "royalty free" does not mean FREE FREE. Royalty free pays a license fee UP FRONT, and nothing after that point. If synchronized to visual media, a cue sheet must be filed just like any other Film/TV show does, and back end performance royalties pay as per normal.

The term "Royalty Free" means you don't have to keep coming back to the library for different usages or markets. Yes, it's not optimal for the composer, but it does NOT mean people are stealing your music.

I think the term "Royalty Free" is a bit confusing b/c so many companies have slightly different terms at the point of purchase. For example, Audiojungle means totally free from all royalties.... including broadcast performance. You are not allowed to sell music via their marketplace that is registered to any PRO. They do this to represent the global market. In countries like Germany broadcast duties are not on the network but the content producer, and most of those companies are buying this type of COMPLETELY Royalty-Free product.

Other sites like Audiosparx offer "royalty-free" tracks which are devoid of mechanical royalties but do require the cue sheet be filed. Also, they sell a multi-tiered price.... the lower price is for single usage and doesn't include any reuse terms. Each video would require a new purchase.... OR... you can use their "Buy-out" option which would include re-use in the terms.

So.... it's not quite as clear cut as we'd like to think.... and with microstock sites like Audiojungle, the composer is getting the shaft by not understanding the details. VERY low sync fees ($17 for any usage) and no broadcast royalties... great for Audiojungle and CBS but crappy for producers of content.... unless you're OK with the idea and willing to try to sell massive amounts of quantity to make up for the low single fee.

Why do composers complain so much about the bottom of the market? If composers are seriously investing time and money into their craft, they will not be subject to the disruption at the bottom.

I do not see the point of complaining about how it used to be. Those days are never coming back unless the Internet dies. Technology has permanently changed the way that music is created, distributed, and sold. Thank goodness.

Why do composers complain so much about the bottom of the market? If composers are seriously investing time and money into their craft, they will not be subject to the disruption at the bottom.

I do not see the point of complaining about how it used to be. Those days are never coming back unless the Internet dies. Technology has permanently changed the way that music is created, distributed, and sold. Thank goodness.

Today is the best day to be in the business!

I'm not complaining about the bottom.... I'm expressing pity/concern because those composers don't understand what they are worth.... and they don't understand just how much money they leave on the table by agreeing to horrible deals that advantage the distributor because they assume things have changed sooooo much.

Seriously man... you need to read my post again if you think that was complaining. It's mostly just stating facts. You might pick-up some knowledge that will actually feed you. If the "modern" market is based on a $17 sync fee, you're delusional thinking the changes are great for business..... cause you can't even eat on $8.50 per sync with no performance royalty.

I'm not complaining about the bottom.... I'm expressing pity because they don't understand what they are worth.... and they don't understand just how much money they leave on the table by agreeing to horrible deals that advantage the distributor because they assume things have changed sooooo much.

Dude... what is your point? That people who see a peer going down the wrong path shouldn't say anything? Awesome... glad you're my friend. Hope I figure it out like you and let everyone go down to crapper.

Oh... wait... I'm just out-of-touch with all the technology hipness of the modern era and need to drink some Cool-Aid. You tend to do this in threads a lot.... You don't say many facts but you slam other people for their posts or comments. Drops some facts or back off.... don't troll.

Ha! You like it; otherwise things would be way too boring around here, what with everyone agreeing all nice-like

I do, however agree with your sentiments...

In any case, I just started composing back in March (of this year) and started off using Audiojungle. It's alright; I can write a bunch of cues for client, upload them to Audiojungle, and make residual income from cues that I already got paid for. Still, I rarely admit that I use Audiojungle since it's generally regarded as amateurish (their standards are pretty low).

That said, I had a member from Jingle Punks contact me and tell me to get my stuff off of Audiojungle and put it on Jingle Punks. I went ahead and applied a couple of days ago, but I haven't heard anything back (apparently a decision on whether to accept a composer can take up to two weeks).

I did some superficial vetting of Jingle Punks and they look fairly legit, but does anyone here have any experience with them?

I did some superficial vetting of Jingle Punks and they look fairly legit, but does anyone here have any experience with them?

I do.

Jingle Punks is a solid company to work with. I have had my music steadily placed since joining them back in 2010. I think my first placement was about a year after I joined.

They work on a great deal of cable shows and some network shows too. Not much in the way of sync fees, but the backend royalties are great because of their ability to get music placed in shows. I think signing with them would be beneficial.